I
see "Dunning-Kruger" cited all the time by people who can't or refuse
to understand the most basic physics . It's one of their shields
against actually having to think .
It's trivial to understand and experientially undeniable :
Particles moving "up" in a gravitational field slow down , ie: cool ; Those moving down speed up , ie: heat .
Newton's
Law of Gravity which explains how much faster satellites go in lower
orbit also explains how much faster molecules go at the bottoms of
atmospheres and thus quantitatively explain the temperature profiles of
all planets whatever their atmosphere including the ~ 33c warmer the
bottom of our atmosphere is than our radiative balance with the Sun .
The
GHG paradigm , excluding the Law of Gravity in violation even of
conservation of energy , being false , has thus never presented a
testable equation quantifying their asserted spectral "trapping" nor an
experimental demonstration of it .
Hello
Bob, It is nice to see your opposing views. However - would you be
interested in discussing some of your definitions here? It is incorrect
to say “Particles moving “up” in a gravitational field slow down, ie:
cool.” It is incorrect to say “Those moving down speed up, ie: heat.”
This explanation in relation to particles, fields, gravitation, speeds
and temperature, are not in accord with natural science. Could you
explain how Newtons Law of Gravity for falling objects, explains
increase of speed for objects in orbit? Thank you, L. Dove Arbiter -
Advanced Universal Law
Lauren Dove
Do you know what heat is ?
I
learned Newton's Laws over half a century ago in PSSC high school
physics . We learned how to calculate orbital velocities . We learned
the surprising fact that planets in lower orbits go faster -- Mercury
so fast that it became one of the first demonstrations of special
relativity .
We learned that heat is average kinetic energy of ricocheting molecules .
That's
all that's needed to calculate the temperature profiles of planets as a
number of people have now done in terms of pressure and QUANTITATIVELY
shown to apply across all planets whatever the composition of their
atmospheres .
That "quantitatively" is a big word . It's what makes hard sciences hard : http://cosy.com/Science/QuantTrumpsQual.jpg .
The
spectral GHG paradigm has never presented a testable , ie: quantitative
, equation for its "trapping" of heat in excess of the radiative
equilibrium Tyndall demonstrated > 150 years ago . Because it
violates basic physics .
See http://www.cosy.com/BobA/vita.htm for my background .
Do
you know what heat is ? I learned Newton's Laws over half a century ago
in PSSC high school physics . We learned how to calculate orbital
velocities . We learned the surprising fact that planets in lower
orbits go faster -- Mercury so fast that it became one of the first
demonstrations of special relativity . We learned that heat is average
kinetic energy of ricocheting molecules . That's all that's needed to
calculate the temperature profiles of planets as a number of people
have now done in terms of pressure and QUANTITATIVELY shown to apply
across all planets whatever the composition of their atmospheres . That
"quantitatively" is a big word . It's what makes hard sciences hard :
http://cosy.com/Science/QuantTrumpsQual.jpg . The spectral GHG paradigm
has never presented a testable , ie: quantitative , equation for its
"trapping" of heat in excess of the radiative equilibrium Tyndall
demonstrated > 150 years ago . Because it violates basic physics .
See http://www.cosy.com/BobA/vita.htm for my background .
Bob Armstrong
Thank you for your links, Bob. Very interesting!
Are
you saying that when we can accurately measure all of the change in
temperature; that this will mean, or show, that there will have been no
change?
Thank
you for your links, Bob. Very interesting! Are you saying that when we
can accurately measure all of the change in temperature; that this will
mean, or show, that there will have been no change?
Lauren Dove
All
of this has been over a change of about 0.3% -- from about 288 Kelvin
to 289 . Satellites have shown no trend above noise since about the
turn of the century while CO2 has gone up about 10% -- continuing the
increasing greening of the planet .
But
with a return of the field to a respectable branch of quantitative
applied physics by including the gravitational component which explains
the temperature "lapse rate" with altitude , the small effect of
changes in CO2 will be able to be worked out .
All
of this has been over a change of about 0.3% -- from about 288 Kelvin
to 289 . Satellites have shown no trend above noise since about the
turn of the century while CO2 has gone up about 10% -- continuing the
increasing greening of the planet . But with a return of the field to a
respectable branch of quantitative applied physics by including the
gravitational component which explains the temperature "lapse rate"
with altitude , the small effect of changes in CO2 will be able to be
worked out .
Bob Armstrong
288 to 289. Very interesting! (I think I know exactly what you are talking about!)
And
once you have worked out the exact figure; what will this figure
represent? How can you have an “interval of temperature”? (lapse rate)
Is this 0.3% that we are talking about here a range of error in calculating intervals? (vibration/tone/potential)
Have you taken your study to the level of light waves, electricity and the periodic elements?
288
to 289. Very interesting! (I think I know exactly what you are talking
about!) And once you have worked out the exact figure; what will this
figure represent? How can you have an “interval of temperature”? (lapse
rate) Is this 0.3% that we are talking about here a range of error in
calculating intervals? (vibration/tone/potential) Have you taken your
study to the level of light waves, electricity and the periodic
elements?
Lauren Dove
I'm
sorry . I should have labeled Kelvin which is like centigrade ( celsius
) but starts at absolute 0 . Thus you can talk about 289. being 0.34%
hotter than 288. 0.0 centigrade is 273.15 Kelvin . The temperature of a
gray ball . ie: totally flat spectrum , in our orbit totally is about
278.6 +- 2.3 from perihelion when we are closest to the Sun in early
January to when we are furthest at aphelion .
I
go thru a lot of this on my website http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics
which include a link to my talk at a Heartland Inst conference a few
years which goes thru the calculations in terms of spectra , ie:
wavelengths .
You will see that at
the time I just showed that Venus's extreme temperature could not
possibly be explained by a spectral GHG phenomenon , so my "alternate
hypothesis" was "I don't know" .
Only
since then did it become clear and demonstrated that the bottoms of
atmospheres are hotter than a gray ball in their orbit due to the
universal trade-off of gravitational and kinetic energy which everybody
who has thrown a ball in the air can understand .
I
don't think that was much questioned until the anti- CO2 cult came
along and ascribed , without equation , that gravitational thermal
gradient to spectrum . It's done enormous damage to both human --
particularly the poor -- and ecological -- vast landscapes polluted
with intermittent bird chopper ( which need special dispensation for
that particular carnage ) and which still need to be backed up 100% by
fossil or nuclear for the week and longer periods the wind doesn't blow
.
I'm
sorry . I should have labeled Kelvin which is like centigrade ( celsius
) but starts at absolute 0 . Thus you can talk about 289. being 0.34%
hotter than 288. 0.0 centigrade is 273.15 Kelvin . The temperature of a
gray ball . ie: totally flat spectrum , in our orbit totally is about
278.6 +- 2.3 from perihelion when we are closest to the Sun in early
January to when we are furthest at aphelion . I go thru a lot of this
on my website http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics which include a link to
my talk at a Heartland Inst conference a few years which goes thru the
calculations in terms of spectra , ie: wavelengths . You will see that
at the time I just showed that Venus's extreme temperature could not
possibly be explained by a spectral GHG phenomenon , so my "alternate
hypothesis" was "I don't know" . Only since then did it become clear
and demonstrated that the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than a gray
ball in their orbit due to the universal trade-off of gravitational and
kinetic energy which everybody who has thrown a ball in the air can
understand . I don't think that was much questioned until the anti- CO2
cult came along and ascribed , without equation , that gravitational
thermal gradient to spectrum . It's done enormous damage to both human
-- particularly the poor -- and ecological -- vast landscapes polluted
with intermittent bird chopper ( which need special dispensation for
that particular carnage ) and which still need to be backed up 100% by
fossil or nuclear for the week and longer periods the wind doesn't blow
.
Bob Armstrong
Well,
it’s been interesting talking to you, Bob. I do not know if any of your
theory is accurate, and you haven’t really answered any of my
questions. You’ve given me more to think about though.
This whole climate change debate is a complete disaster, isn’t it..
Well,
it’s been interesting talking to you, Bob. I do not know if any of your
theory is accurate, and you haven’t really answered any of my
questions. You’ve given me more to think about though. This whole
climate change debate is a complete disaster, isn’t it..
Lauren Dove
It's
diverted a very costly amount of my time and energy because it violated
even my sense of physics going back to being grade school nerd during
the Eisenhower administration .
It
is appropriate to call it a religion because it abandoned the classical
quantitative testable analytical method of physics certainly by the
time of James Hansen et al's 1981 paper
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html which has NO quantitative
analysis or proof of anything yet became a lynch pin for this
horrendously destructive ( for the common man and the environment but a
gravy train for the globe trotting political elite ) fiasco .
And
reducing the role of gravity to the undeniable experience as the story
of an apple falling on Newton's head I think cuts thru the egregious
nonscience .
I
see "Dunning-Kruger" cited all the time by people who can't or refuse
to understand the most basic physics . It's one of their shields
against actually having to think . It's trivial to understand and
experientially undeniable : Particles moving "up" in a gravitational
field slow down , ie: cool ; Those moving down speed up , ie: heat .
Newton's Law of Gravity which explains how much faster satellites go in
lower orbit also explains how much faster molecules go at the bottoms
of atmospheres and thus quantitatively explain the temperature profiles
of all planets whatever their atmosphere including the ~ 33c warmer the
bottom of our atmosphere is than our radiative balance with the Sun .
The GHG paradigm , excluding the Law of Gravity in violation even of
conservation of energy , being false , has thus never presented a
testable equation quantifying their asserted spectral "trapping" nor an
experimental demonstration of it .
Bob Armstrong
"which explains how much faster satellites go in lower orbit "
What??? Are you sure you know what you're talking about and aren't, right now, showing your Dunning Kruger?
"I see "Dunning-Kruger" cited all the time by people who can't or refuse to understand the most basic physics " Really?
It has nothing to do with physics. Do you understand dunning kruger?
It's the theory that those who are wildly incompetent lack even the
ability to discern incompetence from expertise.
"The GHG paradigm" Paradigm?? Sorry
- are you claiming greenhouses don't work? Or are you claiming C02 is
not a greenhouse gas and, amazingly, pumping billions of tons of it
into our atmosphere has no effect at all?
"...explain the temperature profile of all planets..." What???
Mars has no atmosphere, venus has one thick with acid, you think it's
just "gravity" that explains those differences? Wow. Please tell me you
don't have a degree in physics.
"which
explains how much faster satellites go in lower orbit " What??? Are you
sure you know what you're talking about and aren't, right now, showing
your Dunning Kruger? "I see "Dunning-Kruger" cited all the time by
people who can't or refuse to understand the most basic physics "
Really? It has nothing to do with physics. Do you understand dunning
kruger? It's the theory that those who are wildly incompetent lack even
the ability to discern incompetence from expertise. "The GHG paradigm"
Paradigm?? Sorry - are you claiming greenhouses don't work? Or are you
claiming C02 is not a greenhouse gas and, amazingly, pumping billions
of tons of it into our atmosphere has no effect at all? "...explain the
temperature profile of all planets..." What??? Mars has no atmosphere,
venus has one thick with acid, you think it's just "gravity" that
explains those differences? Wow. Please tell me you don't have a degree
in physics.
Gavin Magrath
I
consider it a paradigm in the Kuhnian sense ,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ , because both sides in
the debate buy into it .
If you
don't know the purported "greenhouse" effect has nothing to do with the
stopping of convection by the glass enclosures of actual greenhouses
the you need to do at least a little reading . That notion was
falsified by Wood in 1909 ,
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf,
altho I think much better experiments could be designed even for high
school classes today .
Yes , I and
10s of thousands of other quantitatively trained individuals have been
trying to get that message thru this arrogant herd ignorance for years .
And
, yes , several people have published graphs showing that the
gravitational >< kinetic ( thermal ) energy tradeoff dominates
even at Earth's sea level pressure . The next time I see one , I'll add
it to my archive at http://cosy.com/Science/.
I
consider it a paradigm in the Kuhnian sense ,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ , because both sides in
the debate buy into it . If you don't know the purported "greenhouse"
effect has nothing to do with the stopping of convection by the glass
enclosures of actual greenhouses the you need to do at least a little
reading . That notion was falsified by Wood in 1909 ,
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf,
altho I think much better experiments could be designed even for high
school classes today . Yes , I and 10s of thousands of other
quantitatively trained individuals have been trying to get that message
thru this arrogant herd ignorance for years . And , yes , several
people have published graphs showing that the gravitational ><
kinetic ( thermal ) energy tradeoff dominates even at Earth's sea level
pressure . The next time I see one , I'll add it to my archive at
http://cosy.com/Science/.
Bob Armstrong
Wow, you're just not even addressing the point, or my challenge. Your
claim about particles slowing and cooling as they move up in a
gravitational field is flat wrong. Higher orbits move faster. It also
has nothing to do, frankly, with climate change or with cognitive bias,
which is why it's so strange to see it here - not just wrong but
apparently off topic.
No I do not think and never argued that CO2 stops convection - that's a wild strawman. Is
your point that you do not think humans have any material impact on our
environment? Or is it just that you think describing heat as moving
particles somehow sounds clever and addresses anthropogenic climate
change?
Wow,
you're just not even addressing the point, or my challenge. Your claim
about particles slowing and cooling as they move up in a gravitational
field is flat wrong. Higher orbits move faster. It also has nothing to
do, frankly, with climate change or with cognitive bias, which is why
it's so strange to see it here - not just wrong but apparently off
topic. No I do not think and never argued that CO2 stops convection -
that's a wild strawman. Is your point that you do not think humans have
any material impact on our environment? Or is it just that you think
describing heat as moving particles somehow sounds clever and addresses
anthropogenic climate change?
Gavin Magrath
Do the calculations .
You
are the one who said "are you claiming greenhouses don't work?" I
responded to that . Yes they work . By stopping convection . And they
are irrelevant .
The point is that
gravity quantitatively explains planetary temperature profiles all the
way to the core and atmospheres are not immune . But it is excluded
"with prejudice" from the spectral GHG paradigm which has NEVER
presented either quantitative equation nor experimental demonstration
of its asymmetric heat trapping
Heat IS moving particles .
It's
not clever . It used to be basic high school physics half a century ago
. It should be still if there is any hope for an educated population .
Do
the calculations . You are the one who said "are you claiming
greenhouses don't work?" I responded to that . Yes they work . By
stopping convection . And they are irrelevant . The point is that
gravity quantitatively explains planetary temperature profiles all the
way to the core and atmospheres are not immune . But it is excluded
"with prejudice" from the spectral GHG paradigm which has NEVER
presented either quantitative equation nor experimental demonstration
of its asymmetric heat trapping Heat IS moving particles . It's not
clever . It used to be basic high school physics half a century ago .
It should be still if there is any hope for an educated population .
Bob Armstrong
Yes Bob heat is moving particles. Now
the question is, are they moving faster on average in our atmosphere
and oceans now as compared to 100 or 200 years ago? The answer is yes.
The next question is "why"? Since the gravitational field of the earth
hasn't changed, that's obviously not the answer.
Now,
this was a talk about cognitive biases, and you commented to say you
see people talking about DK who know nothing about physics as an excuse
to ignore it. That's a pretty wild accusation to make, and DK has
nothing to do with physics, so it seems to me *you're* the one bringing
it up in an effort to avoid the point. But unless you want to point out
someone here making a DK type of error, you're just trolling.
"and atmospheres are not immune" What
a weird comment. I mean, the moon has no atmosphere and no climate, for
all intents and purposes neither does mars. How can you possibly
pretend that gravity explains our climate? It's such a bizarre claim. I
mean, if true our climate wouldn't change. If it was all
gravitationally determined then since the earth's mass isn't really
changing our climate should have been stable for the last billion
years. It hasn't been and isn't.
I
mean, it's not rocket science: if what you said were true, we would see
a completely different world and climate. So what you say - that it's
all just gravity - is not true, and your implication - that all those
thousands of climate scientists doing their jobs and collecting their
data are all wrong and wasting everyone's time - is also not true.
Also
you said things going up the gravity well slow down and get cooler. I'm
the second person to challenge you that that is wrong, it's utterly
backwards, higher orbits are faster, period. How can you keep avoiding
that?
Yes
Bob heat is moving particles. Now the question is, are they moving
faster on average in our atmosphere and oceans now as compared to 100
or 200 years ago? The answer is yes. The next question is "why"? Since
the gravitational field of the earth hasn't changed, that's obviously
not the answer. Now, this was a talk about cognitive biases, and you
commented to say you see people talking about DK who know nothing about
physics as an excuse to ignore it. That's a pretty wild accusation to
make, and DK has nothing to do with physics, so it seems to me *you're*
the one bringing it up in an effort to avoid the point. But unless you
want to point out someone here making a DK type of error, you're just
trolling. "and atmospheres are not immune" What a weird comment. I
mean, the moon has no atmosphere and no climate, for all intents and
purposes neither does mars. How can you possibly pretend that gravity
explains our climate? It's such a bizarre claim. I mean, if true our
climate wouldn't change. If it was all gravitationally determined then
since the earth's mass isn't really changing our climate should have
been stable for the last billion years. It hasn't been and isn't. I
mean, it's not rocket science: if what you said were true, we would see
a completely different world and climate. So what you say - that it's
all just gravity - is not true, and your implication - that all those
thousands of climate scientists doing their jobs and collecting their
data are all wrong and wasting everyone's time - is also not true. Also
you said things going up the gravity well slow down and get cooler. I'm
the second person to challenge you that that is wrong, it's utterly
backwards, higher orbits are faster, period. How can you keep avoiding
that?
Gavin Magrath
Let's get the physics right .
Have you done the calculations which show that indeed planets in lower orbits go faster ?
Is heat the average kinetic energy of molecules bumping into each other ?
Does
a particle go slower when it moves upward thus to be in balance with
total energy , ones above will be hit with a little less kinetic energy
than those below ?
And ,
incidentally , it was shown in 1959 that even photons red shift ( cool
) climbing out of a gravitational well . But you are claiming
atmospheres are immune .
Bonus
question : Read Hansen et al "seminal" 1981 paper ,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html , and point out where they
prove anything .
I
reserve the
right to post all communications I receive or generate to CoSy website
for further reflection . Contact
: Bob Armstrong
; About this page : Feedback ;
719-337-2733
Coherent Systems / 28124 Highway 67 / Woodland
Park , Colorado / 80863-9711 /\
/\ Top /\ /\
